Does Democracy encourage ethnic conflict? Examples from Sri Lanka and Canada:
             This essay explores the connections between democracy and ethnic conflict in two cases of recent history –Sri Lanka and Canada. The experience of both countries with varied degree of conflicts shows that democratic institutions are not sufficient to prevent conflict and in sharply divided societies may even foment it. The case of Sri Lanka suggests that redesigning democratic institutions in order to reduce conflict may actually accentuate it. Looking at the Canada from the consociational perspective helps us to understand how the democracy in Canada works successfully, why it works in a particularly elitist way, and which problems Canadian political institutions have in managing ethnic conflict.
             Sri Lanka has seen intractable and brutal civil war between the majority Sinhalese and the minority Tamils. Post-independence shifts in the political leadership of the Sinhalese elite from a secular, liberal attitude towards a more chauvinistic, nationalistic one led to changes favoring the Sinhalese in linguistic, economic, and political spheres. The consequent alienation of the Tamils grew, until in 1976, the main political representative of the Tamil population began advocating a separate state in the Northern and Eastern Provinces. Rising militancy of the Tamil movement, Sinhalese insecurities, and unsatisfactory progress in devolution discussions have contributed to the more or less sustained violence between the two communities during the past 16 years.
             Therefore, Sri Lanka has had democratic institutions, yet still has longstanding conflict. As Robert Rotberg, in his book "Creating peace in Sri Lanka", argues the idea of sharing political power, particularly among the ethnic grou...